Jeffrey Quick's Blog

I had a related entry back in October. There are some comments you will probably find informative.

http://blog.case.edu/gps10/2005/10/03/laws_only_apply_to_the_lawabiding

Interesting topic, so I hope people respond and a discussion develops.

I find your example of a possible lawsuit that could arise if someone is killed because they were prevented from carrying a gun on the campus (even though they have a permit to carry it) thought provoking. Many buildings and organizations have restrictions to carry guns in Ohio (libraries, public schools, public universities, government offices, churches, day cares, private companies, etc.). Are you suggesting if someone is gunned down in any of these institutions, their family should sue because someone else (not the institution) broke the law? I feel much safer on the Case campus than I do in any Post Office, where shootings happen and no guards are posted (at least in the ones I have used).

Gregory:

Good catch on the legal problem of the state dictating what can be done on private land re CCW. This would of course invalidate a wrongful-death lawsuit right out of the gate. But the same would not be true of any number of private businesses (Dave's Supermarket, for example) with similar posted restrictions, not mandated by law. There are some in the gun community who would legally prevent private businesses from banning CCW...but aren't as worked up about the state banning a private college's choice. Personally, I think most businesses with posted no-carry signs really don't care; their insurance company probably provided the signs along with a carrot or stick for posting them. If people start getting sued for wrongful-death of unarmed CCW holders, that insurance equasion will change.

Lots of interesting comments on that other thread. A Swiss Army knife a weapon?! Some of us are of-an-age where real men were expected to carry a pocketknife, to cut whatever needed cutting. I use mine for fruits and vegetables at lunch, and can tell you that it's hurt fewer peopple than Ted Kennedy's car did.

As for campus muggings, you can look at that from an act-utilitarian or rule-utilitarian POV. Campus Security probably prefers the act-utilitarian version: give up the dough. On an A-U basis, no amount of money is worth your life. Plus they have to deal with grieving parents, legal hassles etc. The problem with this is that when evil is not resisted, it becomes easier and more widespread. The rule-utilitarian approach would be to stare the guy down and shout "POLICE" as loudly as possible. Most thieves are wimps (they don't even have the 'nads to keep a real job), and assuming they are capable of thought at all (not all are) would not want to face The Night-Night Shot in order to get the kind of chump change most people carry as cash nowadays. Which approach one chooses depends on age, size and strength, availability of improvised weaponry, what the guy is carrying, etc. In my case, I'm damn near 50 with chronic health problems, too slow to run but big enough to be imposing. I don't have a lot to lose by rolling that die. But to the extent that people do that, some of our gentle and well-bred neighbors will realize that college students aren't walking ATMs.

Brian,

I am suggesting exactly that, as long as the no-carry zone was the business' choice and not government mandated. It is true that the business was not at fault in the actual crime. However, it can be argued that posting no-carry makes them negligent, since it announces a store full of unarmed victims, and because it forbids the customer to defend himself, while not providing other defence. If they have a rent-a-cop on duty, they could probably beat the rap fairly easily, but it would still cost them.

Jeffery, interesting thoughts.

Not long ago we did not have people carrying guns, so these organizations were already gun free. They are still gun free, so it seems funny that we have increased the responsibility of those organizations for the safety of its users.

I wonder what the case law said previously about an organization's responsibility when users were killed by a person carrying an illegal gun or other device. If they were not responsible before gun carrying was legal, I am not sure that their responsibility has increased now.

I hope this discussion continues.

Brian,

Not long ago we did not have people carrying guns, so these organizations were already gun free.

Correction: we didn't have people carrying guns LEGALLY.

They are still gun free, so it seems funny that we have increased the responsibility of those organizations for the safety of its users.

I'm not sure "we" have. I'm not a lawyer, and can't quote you case law on this. But we should be, because now, as opposed to earlier, the individual has a legally recognized right of self-defence (or, more precisely, state permission to exercise the right they always had). If somebody abrogates that right, and harm comes of it, there should be some legal recourse. Earlier, to assign responsibility for illegal carry to individual businesses would have implied there was some way of stopping it. Short of installing metal detectors at every entrance, I don't see that being remotely poossible...and that particular solution is neither economically nor culturally feasible.

I was going to get a gun this summer, but after this horrific shooting I think I might speed up the process a little.

Guns shouldn't be associated with fear and murderers, they should be associated with defending your country, and protecting yourself and those around you.

It's never too late to learn. I never shot at all until I was 40. Just find somebody who knows guns, both from a safety POV and mechanically, so you don't buy something like my first handgun, a Jennings J-22 with a tendency to jam.

NO GUNS in Campus.

Although in US, citizens are entitled the right to have gun, and on the other hand, the Rifle Association has been sturbenly and consistently resisting any legislature effort to ban/restrict weapons, there are still ways to keep the campus clean. As this article said, case is a private institution, so the board of university can set up regulations to officially ban any weapons in campus, to setup checkpoint, to randomly scrutize suspicious people. SO I agree with the point made in this article

LL&H,
That's why you live in the UK. We should have let the Germans teach you all up close and personal what guns are for.

America is going to hell in gasoline underwear. You damn right it's a loaded question! I couldn't begin to try & answer that without sharing about 3 pages of oppistion that support both the negitive & positive. With all the violent outbreaks of kid launching all out attacks with in the school shooting & killing innocent kids & teachers I say hell no. I read some really good articles on www.badspace.com about seeing the warning signs to help prevent situations like this but I dont think the warning signs are always visible to the people that can prevent the situations. If the parents overlook the signs then what are the complete strangers supposed to do????

Jeffrey Quicl, Oh i forget how u lot won the war!! Typical american re-arranging history to suit! Besides, with the amount of brit troops killed in 'friendly fire' incidents by american troops i think the gung ho approach you seem to like shows exactly why guns shouldn't be allowed on campus or anywhere!

Very well, Brit. You can keep your Moslem terrorists in line by throwing bangers at them.

What as opposed to shooting them while they're still in high school you mean!!